Musgrove v. Hanifin

Opinion

] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |) MUSGROVE, Case No.: 20-CV-614-JO-BLM 12 Plaintiff, 13 |] V- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 16] ante a RECOMMENDATION AND 15 Defendants.| WITH PREJUDICE 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Irvin Musgrove (“Plaintiff”), representing himself pro se, filed a civil rights 21 action on March 31, 2020, against Angie Hanifin, Margery Pierce, Keysa Machado, Susanz 22 ||Sandoval-Soto, and the Oceanside Housing Authority (“Defendants”). Dkt. 1. Plaintif 23 || filed his operative pleading on October 18, 2021. Dkt. 134. On June 8, 2023, Defendant: 24 || moved for terminating sanctions and dismissal of the case on the grounds that Plaintiff ha: 25 || failed to prosecute his case and comply with court orders. Dkts. 223, 227. On July 27 26 2023, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a Report and Recommendation granting 27 || Defendants’ motion and ordered any objections to be filed by August 18, 2023. Dkt. 230 28 || Neither party objected to the report.

1 The district court only reviews a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation 2 || when the parties object to his or her findings and conclusions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) 3 [district] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of 4 ||the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is 5 ||made.”). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 6 || judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 7 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). 8 ||“Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, 9 || findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Jd. Upon 10 conducting a review of the objected-to portions, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, 11 whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 12 ||U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). 13 Here, neither party filed an objection to the Report by the August 18, 2023, deadline. 14 || Between July 27, 2023, when Judge Major issued her Report and Recommendation, and 15 ||the current date, October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed the following documents: “Motion for 16 || Fraud Correction” on August 1, 2023, [Dkt. 231], “Motion for Reconsideration, Judgment 17 || on the Pleadings, and the Recusal of Judge Jinsook Ohta,” on August 13, 2023, [Dkt. 233], 18 “Emergency Motions for the Recusal or Judges Ohta and Major by Peremptory 19 ||Challenge,” on September 28, 2023, and October 4, 2023, [Dkts. 240, 242], and an 20 ||““Emergency Motion to Disqualify Judges Ohta and Major,” on October 6, 2023. [Dkt. 21 ||243]. After reviewing the underlying arguments in these documents, the Court finds that 22 of them can be construed as Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 23 ||Recommendation. These filings, which focus on allegations of fraud committed by Judges 24 || Ohta, Curiel, and Major, do not dispute or disagree with Judge Major’s findings regarding 25 Plaintiff's failure to participate in discovery and the litigation process and (2) his 26 ||express unwillingness to comply with court orders. Nor do they address the reasoning in 27 Report and Recommendation or argue against her ultimate conclusion that the case 28

1 ||}should be dismissed because of Plaintiff's refusal to participate. Accordingly, because 2 ||neither party has objected, the Court concludes that it need not conduct a de novo review. 3 In conclusion, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major’s Report and 4 ||Recommendation [Dkt. 230] in its entirety and DISMISSES the claims against Defendants 5 || with prejudice. Further, the Court DIRECTS the clerk to close the case. 6 ISSO ORDERED. 7 8 |}Dated: October 24, 2023

10 H le/Yinsook Ohta i United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28